* For all the good cheer among Dems today, a new Associated Press poll finds a rise in the number of people who think the country is on the wrong track, the number who disapprove of Obama, and the number who want Republicans to control Congress.

* Howard Kurtz is counting the minutes until conservative commentators who sounded the alarm about O'Donnell close ranks behind her.

* Stan Greenberg releases all the polling data he showed to House Dems on why the fight over the Bush tax cuts is a winner. Still waiting for them to act on it.

If O'Donnell has never been married and thinks 'baitin' is evil, can we safely assume she is a "41 Year Old Virgin?"

That is just... abnormal.

Then again, if history has shown us anything, it is that those who are most uptight about s-e-x tend to have walk in closets loaded to the rafters with skeletons. Given how strident she is on the issue I won't be surprised if pictures come to light with her as the meat in a Jeff Gannon/Larry Craig sandwich.

OMG. The AP has gone completely around the bend. Greg, please call them and ask WTF??

"AP-GfK Poll: Climate for GOP keeps getting better (AP)

AP - Tilted toward the GOP from the start of the year, the political environment has grown even more favorable for Republicans and rockier for President Barack Obama and his Democrats over the long primary season that just ended with a bang."

A 39.6% top rate isn't outrageous. It's not socialism. It's lower than the top rate for most of Reagan's presidency, lower than Nixon's top rate, lower than Eisenhower's top rate, and lower than FDR's top rate when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

Capehart's comments re Delaware are a perfect example of the idiocy of the main stream media. Don't think for a minute that Coons and the Dems are going to let DE be a repeat of MA. These nut cases running for the Senate as well as that bigot running for Gov of NY will shift the GOP further to the right for the 2012 election. I can already see a repeat of the Goldwater 1964 debacle.

One nice thing about the Scott Brown win is that it puts Dems on notice while still having a Republican who is just a moderate. I'm sure Coons isn't going to take his race lightly.

It makes you understand why McCain hammered Hayworth before that race appeared on the national radar. McCain saw the threat early and worked to stave it off. Castle probably could have done the same if he didn't write off O'Donnell from the start.

"""Since nominees facing the confirmation process also enter a period of public silence, avoiding the confirmation process would also allow Warren to publicly discuss the agency and its benefits, which the president is eager for her to do."""

"They’re saying that Barack Obama represents the spearhead of this vast socialist conspiracy to have government swallow up the fabric of American life and he’s going to crush our individualism, and our freedom, and the vitality of small business

...

They tell us that they they represent America the way it used to be, self-reliant, virtuous individuals and small businesses. And the truth is, what they want to do is dismantle government so corporations, big corporations will control our destiny."

* Obama administration to require all idle wells in Gulf to be plugged *

More than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells lie beneath the Gulf of Mexico, and more than 1,200 oil rigs and platforms sit idle. An Associated Press investigation showed that many of the wells have been ignored for decades, with no one checking for leaks.

The order issued Wednesday requires operators to plug wells that been inactive for the past five years. Production platforms and pipelines must be decommissioned if they are not being used for exploration or production, even under an active lease.

The order addresses what is known in the oil and gas industry as "idle iron": wells, platforms and pipelines that are no longer used for production or exploration and do not serve a useful economic function.

She paraded around for years, beginning in the mid-1990s (so it appears) with the title "President and Founder." And that title, and the impression she was the head of a real organization, opened a lot of doors for her.

But it appears SALT did not register as a 501(c)(3) until 2000, its 2006 Form 990-EZ shows it received just $2,000 in contributions that year, and that other than Christine O'Donnell, there was only one other "officer, director, trustee or employee," someone in Washington, D.C. named Sara Lockwood, who also appears to have been with whatever "public relations" business O'Donnell was trying to run.

So how "real" was this group that she so famously was heading? Even liberal blogs are describing her as the president and founder of a "group". Was there ever a "group," or just self-promotion by Christine O'Donnell?

How about someone in our sharp-as-a-tack media ask her about the membership and budget of this group?

Cuomo/Palladino and Coons/O'Donnell are two of the most interesting races for November. Presently, Palladino and O'Donnell have huge momentum. I don't think either have the extensive baggage that Sharron Angle has, and she is apparently ahead of Reid, today, by 1 percentage point. It will be interesting to see how Cuomo and Coons tries to woo Independents, moderate Rebubs, and the all the un-enthusiastic Democrats to get out and vote for them....

"That is, Kristol, the WSJ and Limbaugh most obviously. These are the main media story-tellers or marketers or narrative-creators (pick your favorite term)..."

Limbaugh and the WSJ can reasonably be said to represent widely consumed outlets for conservative opinions. But I would wager that you could ask 100 random people at a tea party event who Bill Kristol is or what The Weekly Standard is and maybe 15 of them would know who/what you are talking about. I doubt very much he is swaying the masses on much of anything. He is your own personal bogeyman, Bernie.

"But they are using her for her obvious ability to motivate and perhaps beyond that as well, to function as a cardboard cutout leader they can manipulate (the first is certain, the second less so)."

Who exactly is "they"? You mentioned "big money and entrenched power" but that is decidedly unenlightening. Do any of the members of this cabal have actual names? ("The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, ...and Colonel Sanders before he went t*ts-up." - Stuart MaKenzie) And exactly what "power" are they wielding, and how?

Christina O'Donnell is on the big stage now, and there are dozens of journalists pouring all over everything trying to figure out who she is and where she came from. After reading her story, in O'Donnell friendly sources like Everyday Christian, and noticing certain vaguenesses and humongous chronological holes, I suspect that what fills in these holes, and eliminates the vagueness, will not be flattering.

I have been following the exchanges on the tax cut/increases with some interest. At the risk of offending some of my fellow conservatives, I don't think it's quite fair to cast the government as some sort of bogeyman. When we accuse liberals of thinking our income belongs to "the government", which gets to decide how much of it we keep, it sounds like we're referring to a dictatorship or fiefdom. In a representative democracy like ours, the government is us, not some royal family.

Granted, it doesn't always feel that way, but theoretically at least, we vote for the people who come closest to sharing our particular views. Our representatives, on our behalf, decide how much revenue is required to fund government operations, what sort of tax code and rates will be used to determine each person's share of the liability, and, by definition, "how much we get to keep."

If we want higher or lower taxes, more or less government spending, or whatever, then it's up to US to elect people who feel the same way we do. And if we lose the argument and our guys don't win, it seems disingenous to attack the system. If we don't like what "the government" is doing, we need to put different people in charge.

The Fed may be able to cut interest rates to zero to stimulate the economy, but I don't see how we can reduce tax rates on everyone to zero and still have a country.
A good percentage of people don't pay any federal income taxes now; some even come out ahead---the unearned income credit. So we have to tax somebody something.

I do think allowing the Bush tax cuts on the middle class to expire would damage the recovery, if such a thing actually exists. But I'll admit that I don't lie awake at night worrying that the top 2 or 3% of income earners aren't going to muddle through somehow if they only get to keep the current rates on their first 250,000. The debt isn't going down; it's going up. We're told we can't raise anyone's taxes in a recession. But when things are booming and/or we have a surplus, we're told not to raise them then either.

Frankly, I don't have much faith that I'll save much one way or the other. When the Feds are hard up, they reduce payments to the states for this, that or the other; and my state, local, sales, or property taxes are raised to make up the difference. I usually oppose tax increases just as a matter of course, knowing that, sooner or later, one way or the other, they're going up anyhow. So I just try to slow things down a bit.

It is difficult to see Obama digging himself out of the hole he has put himself into

The bail-out of the banks - it is Obama's bail-out now -

Any criticism that the banks took the money and is sitting on a bunch of money - and is not leading to small business - that is OBAMA'S PROBLEM - for not regulating the TARP properly.

The stimulus - that was the democrats and Obama ALL along - it is ALL Obama's problem.

The Financial Reg bill - NEVER address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - again Obama's problem - Obama SHOULD HAVE DEALT WITH THOSE ISSUES.

Increases in health care rates - again Obama's problems.

Any drags on hiring as a result of the health care bill - again Obama's problem.

Obama has IGNORED the economy for a year and half.

It is difficult to see how Obama can recover from all this -

For Obama to suddenly come out and say - "Here's my economic plan" - that rings of a half-hearted thing - and people will doubt Obama's sincerity - or even ability to grasp economic issues at this point.

How in the world is Obama going to run on ANY OF THIS? How in the world are the democrats supposed to defend ANY OF THIS - when the come-backs are SO EASY ???

“In a representative democracy like ours, the government is us, not some royal family.

I had this very discussion with someone else here a while ago. The government is “us” only in a figurative sense. In reality, the government is not in fact “us”, but is instead (necessarily) an outside agency with authority over “us”. That agency gets populated with people that some of “us” choose, but in fact, out of all of the 536 elected representatives in the federal government, “we” as a people together elect exactly one of them (and even that isn’t strictly true, as 2000 showed). The rest are all put in place by very, very small percentages of “us”. As individuals, we have virtually no power whatsoever to “choose” who will run this agency that has authority over us.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not decrying our system of government. I am simply pointing out that the notion of “us” as the government quite simply a false one.

“The Fed may be able to cut interest rates to zero to stimulate the economy, but I don't see how we can reduce tax rates on everyone to zero and still have a country.”

I don’t know of anyone calling for tax rates of zero. I, for one, advocate a flat tax as the only just method of income taxation. Whether that flat rate is 15% or 30% or something else can be up for discussion, but I firmly believe that all citizens should face whatever tax rate they, through their representatives, decide upon. A majority of ought not be able to vote higher taxes onto an electorally powerless minority but vote themselves lower taxes.

“A good percentage of people don't pay any federal income taxes now; some even come out ahead---the unearned income credit.”

Yes, in 2009 it was, I believe, 47% of all tax filers. That a near majority of income earners are entirely freed from the burden of supporting the very government services which they help to vote into being is, to put it bluntly, insane.

@Scott - I'm not going to bother responding other than re "who is 'they'?".

Not tough. Merely count up the dollars that come into DC (and state houses) to lobby, to fund preferred candidates, and into the broad public via PR campaigns (green logo Beyond Petroleum) with the clear and undeniable end of establishing or changing government policy alongside the campaign to influence public opinion to that same end. All this dough is not coming, I'm certain you'll perceive, from the Association of High School Librarians.

Or, you could take the historical example, paradigmatic, of the United Fruit Company and its relationship to the Dulles brothers, then to Eisenhower, then to how government foreign policy was manipulated for the sake of corporate profits.

Or, you could take the evisceration of safety regulations and/or policy of such regs within the petroleum off shore-drilling sphere and ask yourself - you know, in an honest way - how that came about and how many millions or, surely more likely, billions were tossed over the last three decades to that end.

I'll let you now continue chatting with others. At some point, perhaps you'll get serious.

"Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not decrying our system of government."

Then you say:

"A majority of the electorate ought not be able vote higher taxes onto an electorally powerless minority while at the same time voting in lower taxes for themselves."

Since our system of government provides for majority rule and since throughout the history of the United States the income tax has been progressive in nature, it sure sounds like you are "decrying our system of government."

“A good percentage of people don't pay any federal income taxes now; some even come out ahead---the unearned income credit.”

Yes, in 2009 it was, I believe, 47% of all tax filers. That a near majority of income earners are entirely freed from the burden of supporting the very government services which they help to vote into being is, to put it bluntly, insane.

As usual, all GOP policy (that is, the things they try to do, as opposed to what they blather about during election season**) is focused on making the wealthiest two percent of the population even weathier.

** For instance, abortion in 2004, deficits and debt in 2010, and such as.

P.S. Could you tell me how much U.S. income tax was paid by income earners G.E. and Exxon Mobil in 2009?
~

Since First Lady Michelle Obama unveiled her Let’s Move! program to fight obesity, conservatives have portrayed the effort as a government assault on personal freedoms and liberties. After the administration released a report on obesity in May, Matt Drudge ran a headline saying, “White House seeks controls on food marketing” and on his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asked: “Does every American family need a dietitian appointed by the government to tell them that this food is going to make you fat and this food is not?” Yesterday, Glenn Beck joined the act, criticizing Michelle Obama for encouraging restaurants to “offer healthier versions of the foods that we all love.” He also joked that fat people should die.

"A majority of the electorate ought not be able vote higher taxes onto an electorally powerless minority while at the same time voting in lower taxes for themselves."

That's absurd. Should the majority be able to gang up on an electorally powerless minority such as organized crime and decide to impose legal penalties on their activities? We could come up with thousands of these - they'd all be dumb. Because how the hell else are decisions going to be made? Benevolent monarch? As cmccauley points out, our government was designed to function via majority rule, with a few caveats (bill of rights) designed to prevent the majority from enforcing legal inequality via law. Other than that, it's majority rule.

Smooth move the way Obama put Warren in charge of setting up the CFPB without going through a confirmation fight. Adviser to the WH and Geithner, I bet Geithner's not necessarily too thrilled with that but who cares.

From Ryan Grimm:

"The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until President Barack Obama nominates a permanent director to serve the five-year term -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama also could nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with White House deliberations. Warren will formally be named as a special adviser reporting directly to Obama, also serving as a counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, later this week."

Also, just so everyone knows, a few progressives won some good races last night. As fascinating as the O'Donnell and Paladino wins were, there was other good news yesterday for progressives. David D. has the rundown. Remember I'm working on the Bill Hedrick campaign here in CA44, get your debit cards ready everyone. Hopefully, Ken Calvert will just go back to his real job, real estate developer, in January.

“Annie, you have cast yourself as the very, very progressive candidate and have been warmly supported by the far-left progressive movement,” Swett, the daughter of Congressman Tom Lantos and wife of former Congressman Dick Swett, said in the last debate. “In a year when everyone understands that the country is moving back toward the center and away from the more left, progressive point of view, if you were to become the nominee, would you try to distance yourself from your own positions?”

“Actually Katrina, I think it’s your views that are out-of-step with the voters of the 2nd Congressional District,” replied Kuster, pointing to Swett’s support for the Bush tax cuts, war in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan, not to mention her vociferous support of Lieberman in 2004 and 2006."

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea that people who pay no taxes (less than a majority) have influenced Congress and are imposing their will on the rest of the people (who are a majority).

What it looks like to me is that corporations (who are a minority) are influencing Congress to give them tax breaks and other concessions that increase their bottom line, and not incidentally, their executives (who are a minority) multimillion dollar pay.

Now, Paul Ryan is running around pushing a plan to eliminate C-corp taxes and create a VAT so that ALL people (but not corporations) pay a substantial tax on purchased goods.

There is a powerful minority in this country who actually runs Congress, and it isn't people at the poverty level.

And yet tough enough that you are obviously unable to come up with any actual names from this secret cabal of Palin-users. (Unless you are rather implausibly suggesting with your BP reference that Tony Hayward was using her. Guffaw.)

"At some point, perhaps you'll get serious."

Sorry, Bernie, but "serious" does not, as you seem to bizarrely think, mean "accepting Bernie's outlandish premises without question".

If you were serious you wouldn't be running away from answering a very straight forward (and obvious) question that your thesis raises.

And here's one more. Another argument for ending the tax cuts on income over $250K that I hadn't considered yet. Joshua Holland has six points in his argument, five of which have already been highlighted here by several of us, including Greg, who gets a mention in the article.

"Adding significant amounts of national debt threatens to send interest rates upward, which constrains new business investment and job creation. According to an estimate of that relationship conducted by former Bush Council of Economic Advisers chair Glenn Hubbard, Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen, outgoing OMB director Peter Orszag and William Gale, “the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts on economic growth has therefore been negative -- and it will continue to be negative if the cuts are extended.”

And as the economy sputters back to life and the demand for new loans increases, the upward pressure on interest rates is likely to grow even more."

"Since our system of government provides for majority rule and since throughout the history of the United States the income tax has been progressive in nature, it sure sounds like you are "decrying our system of government."

I'm not at all sure why it would "sound" that way to you. Until 1913 one could have said that throughout the history of the US an income tax had been unconstitutional. Does that mean that advocates of the 13th amendment sounded to you like they were "decrying our system of government"?

BTW, the moral notions that grounded the founding of the US did not include the notion that a majority ought to be able to do whatever it wanted via government. In fact, quite the opposite. The founders believed that a majority ought to be very limited in what it could do via government.

No, Scott, the founders believed the majority ought to be very limited in what it could do via government IN REGARDS TO encroaching on individual rights and liberties. There's nothing in the bill of rights (or anywhere else) in the Constitution indicating that the majority, acting through their representatives, were limited in their power to fund government via taxes. Stop people from building a church (or mosque)? Yes - that's prohibited. Raise tax rates on certain persons or activities but not on others? Nope - not prohibited. Not even suggested.

It doesn't say what you want it to say. So while you can argue that you somehow think it's wrong or immoral that billionaires pay at a higher rate than minimum-wage workers, there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting it or even hinting that it's undesirable.

Scott -- 1913 was a hundred years ago. I know the GOP longs for the good old days but ... as you guys like to say ... c'mon.

So are you now advocating the repeal of the 16th (or any other) amendment. Gee... I thought republicans loved the constitution. It's just those darned amendments that get in the way, huh? Oh, except for the 2nd amendment, that's the good one.

Either you accept and support our system of government or you are decrying it. Make up your mind.

It is absurd to say that a majority ought not be able to do certain things? Really? Do you consider the Bill of Rights to be absurd too, then?

"We could come up with thousands of these - they'd all be dumb."

Well, I've been reading your posts and, to be sure, you indeed seem to have no problem coming up with dumb things to say.

"As cmccauley points out, our government was designed to function via majority rule, with a few caveats (bill of rights) designed to prevent the majority from enforcing legal inequality via law. Other than that, it's majority rule."

Actually our government was designed to do a few specifically delineated things via majority rule, and other than that, people are supposed to be left alone by the majority. Read the 10th amendment.

I will grant that one can make a moral argument for how individual income taxes are allocated among participants.

But at the highest level, it takes between x$ and y$ to run the government that the majority wants and it must be paid for by the taxpayers. We can allocate all the taxes to the highest quartile (the rich), or to the middle third (the middle class), or only to the lowest quartile (the poor). The poor can't pay, so that takes care of that. We may want it to be different but it's not. It makes no sense to take money away from the poor (assuming you could get any--remember you can't blood out of a turnip), run it through the mill of government, and give what's left of it back in aid.

It's only the middle class and wealthy who can pay. Then you can talk about flat vs progressive taxation.

There is a powerful minority in this country who actually runs Congress, and it isn't people at the poverty level.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 9:45 PM
-----

Even after four years of a Democratic Congress and two years of Obama? November is coming. If the people in government aren't doing what you want them to do, then you can always vote for a change. Or do you take the Ralph Nader "tweedle dee/tweedle dum" view that there really isn't any practical difference between a Democrat and a Republican? As I use to argue with broadwayjoe at the Fix, people have to leverage their votes. If Democrats are taking African-Americans for granted, nothing will wake them up for the next election cycle like voting a straight Republican ticket in this cycle. If Republicans think the black vote is a jump ball, they might have incentive to work for it. GWB did quite a bit for Africa
compared to previous presidents, but I never heard much praise from the NAACP.
I'm an independent not because I don't think Republicans are more conservative---in some ways---than Democrats, but because I don't like being taken for granted.

"I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around the idea that people who pay no taxes (less than a majority) have influenced Congress and are imposing their will on the rest of the people (who are a majority)."

Their votes count just as much as any other, don't they?

"What it looks like to me is that corporations (who are a minority) are influencing Congress to give them tax breaks and other concessions that increase their bottom line, and not incidentally, their executives (who are a minority) multimillion dollar pay."

Corporations don't vote.

"There is a powerful minority in this country who actually runs Congress, and it isn't people at the poverty level."

Corporations don't vote but they have a lot to say. They have thousands and thousands of lobbyests who even write the legislation. It's better than voting. That way, no one counts the votes, and they win by just hiring lobbyests. The more money, the more they have to say.

"1913 was a hundred years ago. I know the GOP longs for the good old days but ... as you guys like to say ... c'mon."

You have obviously missed the point. I was simply making the point that one can advocate for limiting (or even expanding) the powers of government without objecting to the system itself. Every amendment to the constitution has done precisely that.

"So are you now advocating the repeal of the 16th (or any other) amendment."

No.

"Gee... I thought republicans loved the constitution."

Advocating for a change in the constitution does not imply a lack of respect or "love" for it. For goodness sake, the constitution itself provides for the very process by which it can be amended.

"Either you accept and support our system of government or you are decrying it."

I'm either with it or against it, eh? Very Bush-like of you.

Look, accepting and supporting our system of government does not mean approving of anything and everything our representatives pass as law. If you weren't so intent on trying to (stupidly) discredit me, you would recognize that. Surely even you object to some of the things government does or has done. (Try to think way back to the dark, dark days of Bush and a Republican congress).

"They have thousands and thousands of lobbyests who even write the legislation. It's better than voting. That way, no one counts the votes, and they win by just hiring lobbyests. The more money, the more they have to say."

If what you are saying is that voters sometimes vote into office corrupt politicians that accept money and favors from lobbyists/corporations in return for favorable legislation, then I can't argue with you. (One of my Senators is about as corrupt as they come. Happily, he doesn't have much time left.) It is a real shame that more voters don't take better care with the kinds of people they vote into office.

I think it is a fairly well known fact that lobbyests run Congress. The only member of Congress who are not targeted by lobbyest money are freshmen who have no power, and I'm not too sure that's always true. We can call it corrupt (and I would), but it has become business as usual. That's the power behind Congress.

You should know that I am not an anti-business tree hugger liberal. Quite the contrary. I built businesses, worked in them, ran a few, and sold a couple and took one public. I'm a big time free market advocate. But I'd be dishonest if I didn't report that big business runs our government, IMHO.

I think that the claim that lobbyists or big business "run congress" is a way to deceive ourselves and absolve voters from their culpability in voting into office corrupt politicians. Lobbyists may influence or even write legislation, but they don't, and do not have the power to, vote it into law. Only congressmen and the president have the power to make law, regardless of who has written it.

If legislation X was secretly written by corporation Y in order to give Y an unjust advantage over Z, that is a bad situation. And I blame.....every congressman who voted for legislation X, because they and they alone have the power, in the true sense of the word, to enact the legislation. No one else does.

You should know that I am not an anti-business tree hugger liberal. Quite the contrary. I built businesses, worked in them, ran a few, and sold a couple and took one public. I'm a big time free market advocate. But I'd be dishonest if I didn't report that big business runs our government, IMHO.

Posted by: 12BarBlues 11:15 PM

_______________________________________

So - not only is 12Bar soooooo savvy - from her vast business experience - but she knows everything.

Well - tell us this:

WHAT is the point of voting for Obama and the democrats IF BIG BUSINESS IS GOING TO CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT ANYWAY ????

Answer that question correctly, and you will understand the Tea Party.

So - not only is 12Bar soooooo savvy - from her vast business experience - but she knows everything.
--------------------------------
You sound envious. You should know that I've done more than I listed--I was being modest.

We'll see where this leads. By next year all the changes at Fannie and Freddie should be complete and they will be unrecognizable, WH sources say. Getting back some of the tax payer money sure would help though.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON — "The nation's largest banks have an obligation to pay some of the cost for bailing out mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they sold them bad mortgages, a government regulator said Wednesday.

Edward DeMarco, the acting director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said the banks this summer have refused to take back $11 billion in bad loans sold to the two government-controlled companies, in written testimony submitted for a House subcommittee hearing Wednesday. A third of those requests have been outstanding for at least three months.

DeMarco said the banks have a legal obligation to buy back the loans and called the delays "a significant concern." He said the government may take new steps to force those buybacks if "discussions do not yield reasonable outcomes soon."

In an interview with reporters after the hearing, DeMarco declined to give further details on what the government might do next. He said only that "we're looking for contractual obligations to be fulfilled."

What is going on - are they just throwing everything into the defense bill - as sort of a last-ditch effort to get LIBERAL CRAZINESS passed?

First, Harry Reid is throwing in a repeal of "don't ask don't tell" - before the review at the Pentagon is done.

It is all interest-group pressure.

NOW when that apparently hasn't drawn out the Republicans to create an issue which would work for the democrats,

NOW Harry Reid is throwing in an IMMIGRATION BILL - which is nothing less than AMNESTY.

OK - so now Obama and Harry Reid want to throw AMNESTY FOR ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS onto a defense Authorization bill.

And say if someone votes against that, you are against the troops.

ISN'T THAT AN ABUSE OF THE TROOPS ???

I have never seen such a horrible, low-class, pathetic display of disrespect for the TROOPS WHO ARE DYING IN THE FIELD - than to say that Defense Authorization has to be LINKED to amnesty for illegal aliens and the ending of don't ask dont tell.

Disrespect for the Troops - that is EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE GETTING FROM OBAMA AND HARRY REID.

These are people who should NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED NEAR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - MUCH LESS BE IN POSITIONS OF POWER.

12bb, what is the political strategy of Dems right now? To appeal to a majority who aren't "rich" to tax those who supposedly are. They don't need anyone to "influence" them. Their racket is the same it has been since FDR: buy votes of A with B's money.

Jenn, please go study some history starting with Federalist #10 on preventing effects of majority faction before plaguing everyone with your self-assured but ignorant lecturely. Seriously, you just have NO idea what you are talkingabout when you claim that our government was designed to carry out majority rule outside of the Bill of Rights. In fact go study the history of the Bill of Rights. You obviously haven't even realized that those AMENDMENTS were not part of the original document, and to youlnow why they weren't and that argument t against them? It was this: we don't need them, because the federal government's powers are limited and do not allow it to invade our rights, and adding a statement of such rights might lead people to believe it would otherwise have such powers. Everyone agree with the premise of that objection at the time. But the proponents prevailed in arguing that the structures of the Constitution could be insufficient to prevent abuses even though designed to do so. There is not much doubt that the founders would have called the modern redistributionist state a "wicked project" that the Constitution was designed to prevent.

You guys should stop complaining because, one the health care we have now isnt as good as it was supposed to be. also the law has just been signed so give it some time. so if u want to say u have the right to choose tell that to ur congress men or state official. If you do not have insurance and need one You can find full medical coverage at the lowest price by calling 877-882-4740 or check http://bit.ly/9fDY7U If you have health insurance and do not care about cost just be happy about it and trust me you are not going to loose anything!

12BarBlues,
I meant you (or poor people or black people or anyone else) shouldn't submit to demagoguery. If "your" party or "your" representative isn't doing what you expect of them, don't be afraid to vote them out. It sends a message to them as well as the next representative. We can whine about how corrupt the system has become, or we can work to change it.

Additionally, that is why a "change" election may be coming again. It isn't that everyone has suddenly fallen in love with Republicans, but you can't let politicians know how disappointed in them you are by voting for them again.

Imsinca,
Speaking of Meg Whitman, that was a cute ad she fashioned from Bill Clinton's 1992 attacks of Jerry Brown. Too bad Brown responded by going after Clinton, arguably the most popular Democrat in the country. Nice political instincts, Jerry.

Excellent, thoughtful comment. As a bonus, I absolutely love it when the Koch-Heads start getting all Constitutional. There's nothing like hearing the Apostles of Greed claim that freedom is money and liberty is gluttony.

DDAWD, you completely missed the point! Who said taxes are unconstitutional!? The argument t is made above that the design of our constitutional government is to give free rein to majority rule in all cases save violations of the Bill of Rights.

That is utterly wrong, indeed risible to anyone who knows constitutional history. Please go read the Federalist on majority faction and report back.

And taxes do not equate to the modern welfare redistributionist state. 12bb seems to assume that redistribution is the purpose of taxes, and you assert it, but it is an obvious fallacy.

"A Republican senator is threatening to hold up food safety legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent outbreaks, saying Democrats must find a way to pay for it.

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma says the bill, which has stalled in the Senate for more than a year, adds to the deficit and expands the power of an already troubled agency." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091505528.html?hpid=politics

""A Republican senator is threatening to hold up food safety legislation that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent outbreaks, saying Democrats must find a way to pay for it."

re: O'Donnell and Delaware. From Ace of Spades this morning: "The Delaware Republicans had their convention in May.....and held the primary in September. September of '09? No. September, 2010, about FOUR months after their convention produced Castle as the presumptive nominee. Gee, I wonder why some of the O'Donnell supporters might have seen Castle as the nominee of entrenched insiders?"

Seriously. The Deleware GOP has their convention 4 months before the actual primary. Under those circumstances, you can hardly blame Castle for ignoring O'Donnell as irrelevant until it was too late.

"And Christine O'Donnell is a sideshow freak.
Seriously now, she was a crackpot when she rose on primary morning, and she's a crackpot now, and she will be a crackpot whether she wins or loses in November. She no more belongs in the Senate of the United States today than she did the day she was born. That 30,000-odd primates in Delaware thinks she belongs there is their problem. If enough people in Delaware come to think so, then she becomes our problem.
O'Donnell is a creature of an age in which politics have no meaning beyond performance art. She is the Creature from the Green Room, with no apparent public career beyond being available whenever some teenage booker from the cable shows needed someone to say something reliably stupid. She is one of those people who'd show up at CNN with a waterbowl in her teeth if someone there blew a dog whistle. Her résumé is so thin as to be opaque, and a lot of it seems to be a lie. She seems to be something of a deadbeat, and "U.S. Senator" seems to be her idea of an entry-level position. This morning, she stands one step away from the job. She is what politics produces when you divorce politics from government. She is what you get when you sell to the country that nothing government can do will help, and that the government is an alien thing, and that politics is nothing more than the active public display of impotent grievance. She is what politics produces when you turn it into a game show and the coverage of it over to a generation of high-technology racetrack touts. She is what you get when political journalism reduces politics to numbers on a scoreboard, divorcing it from the real-world consequences of what are increasingly seen as cute little eccentric decisions. She is what politics produces when we abandon self-government for self-gratification.

It was very interesting to watch Rove in his two appearances on FOX speaking on that race.

The first thing I noticed was the adamant insistence that she was unelectable. Of course, he's a tactician and as we know now, was in Delaware last December trying to steer the TP people away from her because he wants control in the Senate. But he was firm that her past would do her in for the general.

The second thing I noticed was how encyclopedic was his knowledge of her blunders, exaggerations and lies. This is a guy who has just the right sort of mind for collecting, remembering and forwarding negative smears when convenient.

There is, of course, the possibility that her record contains worse which Rove already knows of but decided not to use for some strategic reason. I guess we'll see.

@ScottC3: "But I would wager that you could ask 100 random people at a tea party event who Bill Kristol is or what The Weekly Standard is and maybe 15 of them would know who/what you are talking about. I doubt very much he is swaying the masses on much of anything."

But of course! But Kristol is working under the radar to further the goal of nefarious neoconservatism--that is, to product "functional evil" at every possible opportunity.

In many ways, his shadowy behind the scenes mystery is emblematic of the sinister conspiracy behind all non-liberal positions. ;)

esquire via wbgonne: "She no more belongs in the Senate of the United States today than she did the day she was born. That 30,000-odd primates in Delaware thinks she belongs there is their problem."

Now, that sort of talk just makes me want to donate to O'Donnell. Alas, I can't spare the money, but . . . well, I'm skeptical about how calling O'Donnell a freak, and the folks who voted for her "primates" (and giving Delaware a sort of "home of the primates" implication in there) will play. I think it's probably as politically brain-dead as anything O'Donnell has said on the campaign trail. Perhaps they want her to win, just out of curiosity?

If that's the kind of opposition the liberal intelligentsia plans to mount against the Chastity Crusader, she just might eek out a victory.

Some claims that "Modern American conservatives do not care if your daughter, victimized by a rapist, must take that rapist's baby to term."

A conservative reponds, "But that's not my position."

Original claimant answers, "See, you are the exception that proves my claim to be true."

Idiotic? Yup. It was even featured in a Rockford Files episode where the father wielded it in some preposterous circumstance leaving the son bewildered. Of course, it is a riff off of the equally idiotic "axiom" that "every rule has an exception".

But Bill Kristol is happy to put it to use this morning:

"A Good Primary Season for the GOP
Christine O'Donnell is the exception that proves the rule."

You can read the full piece at the link below (Paladino and Scott - Kristol's kind of civic-minded citzens!) if you care to watch a propagandist at work. His position on O'Donnell is precisely the same as Rove's (because, as for Rove, gaining power is all that's really important) so we'll see if Limbaugh gets apoplexy on this fellow too.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/good-primary-season-gop

"In many ways, his shadowy behind the scenes mystery is emblematic of the sinister conspiracy behind all non-liberal positions."

At least Kristol's name is visible. The real players are so deep in the shadows and Voldemortesque that their names dare not even be whispered on our humble little blog. But "serious" people know who they are and what they are doing.

"If that's the kind of opposition the liberal intelligentsia plans to mount against the Chastity Crusader, she just might eek out a victory"

People in this country need to grow up.

I'm sorry, but anyone who is willing to vote for someone just because their fee-fees got hurt is an imbecile. The same thing is true of anyone who votes for someone because they want to have a beer with them. If people can't take their voting responsibility more seriously than that then they deserve to mocked and ridiculed.

The American budgetary model is a very bad one for personal finances. Indeed, anybody who routinely spent beyond their income to the degree the federal government does would be bankrupt by now, a dozen times over.

@schrodingerscat: "I'm sorry, but anyone who is willing to vote for someone just because their fee-fees got hurt is an imbecile. The same thing is true of anyone who votes for someone because they want to have a beer with them. If people can't take their voting responsibility more seriously than that then they deserve to mocked and ridiculed."

Well, I'm sure you'll find that a great consolation, should we end up with a senate chock-a-block full of Angles and O'Donnells. :)

Mocking and ridicule (and over generalization about the voters as being primates) may be emotionally satisfying, but is the sort of thing that is short on substance and indicates a lack of seriousness on the part of the critic as that parallels, if not surpasses, the "lack of seriousness" of the voter who lets the unfiltered invective of the opposition inform their vote.

But by all means. If any place should be safe to mock and ridicule someone like O'Donnell, it's Delaware.

Which you should definitely do so as not to be deceived by Bernie. In the actual article, as opposed to the sub-headline that Bernie cites, Kristol says simply:

"Christine O'Donnell is the exception to the rule that Republicans have, on the whole, nominated strong, electable and conservative candidates in key Senate, gubernatorial, and House races."

Note there is nothing about "proving" anything. Just a commonplace expression of Kristol's opinion that most GOP nominees are electable, while O'Donnell is not. Such "propaganda"!

BTW, Bernie says this:

"[Kristol's] position on O'Donnell is precisely the same as Rove's..."

And, it turns out, precisely the same as Bernie Latham's! Just the other day Bernie was "hoping" that O'Donnell would win the GOP nomination because, just like Kristol, he thinks she can't win in the general election.

The fact that Bernie is now accusing Kristol of engaging in "propaganda" for articulating a position that Bernie himself thinks is true suggests that Bernie's routine attacks on Kristol (and, likely, others) has little to do with anything Kristol actually says or does, and more to do with the fevered imaginations of Chomskyite conspiracy theorists.

"Mocking and ridicule (and over generalization about the voters as being primates) may be emotionally satisfying, but is the sort of thing that is short on substance and indicates a lack of seriousness on the part of the critic as that parallels, if not surpasses, the "lack of seriousness" of the voter who lets the unfiltered invective of the opposition inform their vote. "

And I repeat - this country is in a sh*thole and it's time for people to grow up.

I'm tired of everyone - politicians, the media, fellow voters - nodding and acting like it's an entirely acceptable and "serious" position to vote for someone because they like the "Bumpit" in her hair. Someone who uses things like that to base their vote could give a crap about the "seriousness" of any argument. It's time we as a nation stop worshiping and elevating an uninformed electorate.

Brigade agreed it was not Jerry s sharpest political moves but Bill more than made ip for it with his endorsement. It's tough to run against $119 million and counting but Jerry is hanging in there even though he has just begun to advertise.

"* Still another poll, this one from CNN and Time, finds Reid and Sharron Angle locked in a statistical tie, with Angle leading 42-41."

Of course, this poll couldn't, apparently, find enough minorities or youngsters in the first two age brackets to report on. A careful read of the demographics reported shows a totally meaningless sample, because it leaves out any data from minorities. Apparently minorities don't vote in Nevada.

In the same report the poll gives Portman and Kasich the edge, but again has no minorities or voters in the youth demographic.

How neat, angry old white men and women support Republicans.

They might want to try again, polling ion state and making sure that njon whites get counted.

Based on this polls defects, in fact reid, Reid, Fisher, and Strickland are about to breeze to victory. Because one thing is sure, the Dems can expect massive majorities in the non white contingent opf voters these polls contrived to miss.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.